Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

You have as much difficulty dealing with fact as you do with exercising civility.

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/...echariah-1210/

[tabibito]

Here is the thing about "scholars" telling laypersons that they can't really know what the Bible says unless the speak Greek and Hebrew: Pure horse crap.

Please show me a source that the majority of NT scholars agree with the outrageous statement.

1/ You think Bart Ehrman is a scholar.
2/ You think that it is possible to determine which people are scholars based on whether they agree with you.
3/ The competing claims regarding the actual meanings of the Koine Greek words and texts makes it impossible to determine which of those claims is correct without learning how to navigate through Koine Greek.
4/ Determining which competing doctrines of the various denominations are valid can't be done by reference to English translations, which are informed in part by pre-existing precepts. It is necessary to learn enough of Koine Greek to at least be able to identify the most obvious of the verses slanted to favour pre-existing precepts.
5/ Caution needs to be exercised with regard to which teachers of Koine Greek are heeded, because some teachers of Koine Greek will provide misleading information about the definitions even of words.

[Mikeenders]

It is clear from a simple reading of Paul's epistles that he believed that Jesus was a descendant of David by the usual means of being a descendant of someone: through the flesh,

Yawn.... its clear that Paul believes Jesus is no ordinary man and is the son of God not the son of a man. Of course you wouldn't know because you don't read books (apparently including the Bible)

SO umm lets just look at a few verse in Romans - JUST ROMANS


For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son

[tabibito]

Case in point of trying to determine meanings of texts on the basis of a translation. The fact is: "They will look on me whom they have pierced" - The "me" is the messiah, and also God. "They shall mourn for him" is more in keeping with the literal text as "the one" (though the literal text doesn't explicitly specify the object) ... translating it as "mourn for me" wouldn't fit with the text as readily.

[Mikeenders]

The idea that only Greek speaking scholars can know what the Bible really says is arrogant nonsense. If this concept is true, lay Christians should toss their Bibles in the trash

the average lay person is not making a determination as you were and are about the feasibility of another translation.

You've done your stupidity proud today. Claiming you can have a scholarly discussion about the feasibility of another translation without knowing anything of the language translated is the very height of being a dolt. Take a bow

The good news is that if you ever had any prayer of anyone reading through and taking you seriously you've erased it and your prayers will now go unanswered.

[tabibito]

Dear Readers,

Tabby is absolutely correct about this depending upon how you define the word "destroyed".

All the discrepancies that I have presented are not new. Skeptics have been pointing out these errors in the Bible since at least the second century and Christians scholars have been refuting them (or spinning them) for 2,000 years. Christians have a harmonization/spin for every discrepancy that I or any other skeptic can throw at them. The interesting thing is that if you challenge Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons about the discrepancies in their holy books, they, amazingly, have harmonizations for every one of their discrepancies.

Some (very) few of the objections raised by detractors have been validated. Most have been adequately dealt with. Some of the "harmonisations" are as much nonsense as the stuff you so often post.

So the fact that a religion can refute/harmonize/spin a resolution to an alleged discrepancy is obviously not proof that the holy book in question is the Word of God or that it does not contain errors. So how do we figure out if one or all of the "harmonizable" holy books is true?

I made no reference to those which have been mis-harmonised. My point referenced those that have been not just refuted, but given seppa - confuted.

I suggest this: Look at what the holy book says about matters of science, archeology, genetics, biology and other sciences and see if the holy book's claims on these subjects hold up. If the literal interpretation of the passages on this topic in the holy book have been repeatedly reinterpreted to keep up with scientific advances, that should tell you just how reliable the holy book is. For instance, if the literal interpretation of a holy books says that the sun revolves around the earth, that is a very good indication that the holy book in question was not written by an all-knowing god, but rather by scientifically ignorant human beings. If a holy book tells you that there were horses in North America long before the Spanish arrived to the New World, you know that this holy book is wrong because modern archeology is absolutely certain that the fossil record shows no evidence of horses before the arrival of the Spanish. When the proponents of these holy books try to reinterpet these passages, suggesting that the sun doesn't really circle the earth, this was just an allegory,

Do you refer to "the Earth has rotated such that the sun is beginning to be visible in the East" or do you simply say "sunrise"?

or that the word "horse" in the holy book doesn't mean the kind of horse we think of today but another species of animal, chalk these explanations up to spin:

Not in the least - it would need to be established whether "horse" means "horse" in the original language ... the word might mean "of genus equus": the word "bird" might be translated from a word that means "animals that fly": the word "worm" might be translated from a language that doesn't distinguish between "worm" and "insect larva".

The desperate attempt by superstitious people to prop up their belief system, belief systems upon which their entire lives are built upon; belief systems, which if proved false, would devastate them.

The person here who is most desperate to prop up an ignorant belief system is none other than yourself. Even if your world view was valid, you are ignorant of the matters that you are so fond of criticising. You make no attempt to understand the things that you revile, and the things that you do understand to be valid are those that bring you undone.

[Mikeenders]

Its been real guys.

I'll drop in every now and again but only as time permits


Apparently I have much more equivalent of "patients" than Gary

When a poster clams you don't need to understand a language or consult a scholar that does to determine the viability of a translation, claims that you can just look at three major translations and know and THEN turns around right after that and NEGATES other translations in favor of one there is just too much stupidity, fraud and dishonesty to waste this much time with him each day.

[tabibito]

Its been real guys.

I'll drop in every now and again but only as time permits


Apparently I have much more equivalent of "patients" than Gary

I'd like to do the same, but he is contributing to my list of study topics.

If you happen to find out that the rendering of that passage in Koine Greek with the extra comma is invalid, give me a bell. So far it seems a reasonable fit, but like I said, I'm not advanced enough in study to make the claim in full confidence.

[Gary]

1/ You think Bart Ehrman is a scholar.
2/ You think that it is possible to determine which people are scholars based on whether they agree with you.
3/ The competing claims regarding the actual meanings of the Koine Greek words and texts makes it impossible to determine which of those claims is correct without learning how to navigate through Koine Greek.
4/ Determining which competing doctrines of the various denominations are valid can't be done by reference to English translations, which are informed in part by pre-existing precepts. It is necessary to learn enough of Koine Greek to at least be able to identify the most obvious of the verses slanted to favour pre-existing precepts.
5/ Caution needs to be exercised with regard to which teachers of Koine Greek are heeded, because some teachers of Koine Greek will provide misleading information about the definitions even of words.

Name ONE Christian NT scholar whom I have said is not a scholar. You can't. I respect true scholarship which involves the study of an ancient text and the beliefs and customs of the people who wrote those texts, including their superstitions. I disrespect anyone who believes they are experts in the supernatural, reanimations of dead bodies, or in personal revelations from invisible ghosts gods, such as yourself.

The fact that you deny Bart Ehrman is a scholar shows how truly biased YOU are.

[tabibito]

There are atheist scholars - I don't regard Ehrman as one for simple cause that he has a demonstrated disregard for the facts.
In the same way, I'll not acknowledge a churchman who disregards demonstrated facts as a scholar.
They may have a list of credentials as long as their arms and be very learned, but that doesn't make them scholars.

[Gary]

Yawn.... its clear that Paul believes Jesus is no ordinary man and is the son of God not the son of a man. Of course you wouldn't know because you don't read books (apparently including the Bible)

SO umm lets just look at a few verse in Romans - JUST ROMANS


For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son

I never said that Paul did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God...in some sense of that word. I dare you, however, to show me one statement by Paul that says that Jesus is Yahweh himself.

[Gary]

Some (very) few of the objections raised by detractors have been validated. Most have been adequately dealt with. Some of the "harmonisations" are as much nonsense as the stuff you so often post.

I made no reference to those which have been mis-harmonised. My point referenced those that have been not just refuted, but given seppa - confuted.

Do you refer to "the Earth has rotated such that the sun is beginning to be visible in the East" or do you simply say "sunrise"? Not in the least - it would need to be established whether "horse" means "horse" in the original language ... the word might mean "of genus equus": the word "bird" might be translated from a word that means "animals that fly": the word "worm" might be translated from a language that doesn't distinguish between "worm" and "insect larva". The person here who is most desperate to prop up an ignorant belief system is none other than yourself. Even if your world view was valid, you are ignorant of the matters that you are so fond of criticising. You make no attempt to understand the things that you revile, and the things that you do understand to be valid are those that bring you undone.

Do you guys realize just how ridiculously ignorant you guys sound to educated non-Christians?

[Gary]

Yawn.... its clear that Paul believes Jesus is no ordinary man and is the son of God not the son of a man. Of course you wouldn't know because you don't read books (apparently including the Bible)

SO umm lets just look at a few verse in Romans - JUST ROMANS


For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son

You are a brainwashed member of a fundamentalist religious cult, Mikey.

When your grandchildren and great-grandchildren read your comments left on the world wide web in 40-50 years, they will hang their heads in shame at your superstitious, ignorant bloviating.

[Gary]

Its been real guys.

I'll drop in every now and again but only as time permits


Apparently I have much more equivalent of "patients" than Gary

When a poster clams you don't need to understand a language or consult a scholar that does to determine the viability of a translation, claims that you can just look at three major translations and know and THEN turns around right after that and NEGATES other translations in favor of one there is just too much stupidity, fraud and dishonesty to waste this much time with him each day.

Bye bye.

[Gary]

There are atheist scholars - I don't regard Ehrman as one for simple cause that he has a demonstrated disregard for the facts.
In the same way, I'll not acknowledge a churchman who disregards demonstrated facts as a scholar.
They may have a list of credentials as long as their arms and be very learned, but that doesn't make them scholars.

You are not a scholar, therefore your opinion regarding the credentials of one's scholarship, is not worth a dime.